![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jul. 16th, 2013
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
You keep using that phrase...
Jul. 16th, 2013 06:26 pm.. it doesn't mean what you think it does.
Ok, Portland is one of the last places in the US to have open air water storage in an urban area. For the last seven years the city had been fighting an EPA's order to close or cover over the reservoirs at Mt. Tabor and Washington park.
A month or two back, the city announced that they were giving up the fight.
So a few days ago folks started protesting the decision (where have they been for the last seven years? And they need to talk to the EPA, not the city).
So they were gathered at Mt. Tabor, which happens to be a city park. As with most such, it closes from midnight to 5am. Some opf the protesters wouldn't leave and got arrested. At least of was one camera saying something like "so much for the first amendment".
Sorry, guy. Your arrest had nothing to do with the first amendment. The first amendment says the government can't stop you from speaking your mind. It *doesn't* allow you to speak your mind at a location that is closed to the public.
If you'd complied with the rules, you could have stood on the sidewlk just outside the park and kept right on protesting.
This sort of thing is *way* too common.
The first amendment also doesn't allow you to use someone else's property (real or virtual) to speak your mind. If they don't want you using their platform and kick you off, that's not a violation of your rights. In fact, your attempt to use it against their wishes is a violation of *their* rights.
Matter of act, as I had to explain *far* too many times back when I helped run a BBS, this gets into freedom of the *press*. The owner of the "press" (BBS, web site, blog, newspaper, TV station, etc) is the one who gets to determine what can and can't be said there, You want to spread your view using that sort of media? Fine, you are perfectly free to start your *own* site/paper/whatever.
But nobody owes you a platform. And even in "public" spaces, you are subject to rules like hours of access, noise laws, and the like.
Frankly, I sometimes think we could use a "freedom of silence" or some such. That is, a specifically enumerated right to be able to tell folks "I'm not interested" or "I've heard it before" and then they'd have to *shut up* and quit bothering you. Yeah, it might incresase the problems with apathy, but frankly, if you are accosting folks who'd tell you that, you are wasting your time anyway.
Ok, Portland is one of the last places in the US to have open air water storage in an urban area. For the last seven years the city had been fighting an EPA's order to close or cover over the reservoirs at Mt. Tabor and Washington park.
A month or two back, the city announced that they were giving up the fight.
So a few days ago folks started protesting the decision (where have they been for the last seven years? And they need to talk to the EPA, not the city).
So they were gathered at Mt. Tabor, which happens to be a city park. As with most such, it closes from midnight to 5am. Some opf the protesters wouldn't leave and got arrested. At least of was one camera saying something like "so much for the first amendment".
Sorry, guy. Your arrest had nothing to do with the first amendment. The first amendment says the government can't stop you from speaking your mind. It *doesn't* allow you to speak your mind at a location that is closed to the public.
If you'd complied with the rules, you could have stood on the sidewlk just outside the park and kept right on protesting.
This sort of thing is *way* too common.
The first amendment also doesn't allow you to use someone else's property (real or virtual) to speak your mind. If they don't want you using their platform and kick you off, that's not a violation of your rights. In fact, your attempt to use it against their wishes is a violation of *their* rights.
Matter of act, as I had to explain *far* too many times back when I helped run a BBS, this gets into freedom of the *press*. The owner of the "press" (BBS, web site, blog, newspaper, TV station, etc) is the one who gets to determine what can and can't be said there, You want to spread your view using that sort of media? Fine, you are perfectly free to start your *own* site/paper/whatever.
But nobody owes you a platform. And even in "public" spaces, you are subject to rules like hours of access, noise laws, and the like.
Frankly, I sometimes think we could use a "freedom of silence" or some such. That is, a specifically enumerated right to be able to tell folks "I'm not interested" or "I've heard it before" and then they'd have to *shut up* and quit bothering you. Yeah, it might incresase the problems with apathy, but frankly, if you are accosting folks who'd tell you that, you are wasting your time anyway.